4 ms·

US has air superiority. Other NATO air forces are likely weaker than Russians.

eru 2y ago
Maybe weaker than Russia before the war? They have been bled dry since. But it doesn't really matter: collective defense is the whole point of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
- riku_iki 2y ago
  > But it doesn't really matter: collective defense is the whole point of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I am not certain US will enter war with Russia in case of some escalation with European countries, especially if Trump will be elected.
unclebucknasty 2y ago
>US has air superiority. Other NATO air forces are likely weaker than Russians. A superior air force and air superiority are different concepts. The latter refers to a conflict-time status in a particular theatre.
somenameforme 2y ago
This isn't what air superiority means. It occurs when one side is able to safely fly, and their opponent isn't. It's likely to be an obsolete concept in any sort of peer to peer war due to widespread anti-air weaponry, yet it's very near an assumption in NATO war doctrine, because that doctrine has been developed over decades of invading countries with no ability to defend themselves.
- dilyevsky 2y ago
  NATOs doctrinal reliance on air is precisely the reason why russia has tremendous amount of aa systems deployed
- cm2187 2y ago
  Doesn't it depend on how stealthy is the F35? That will soon be almost the only game in town in Europe (outside of France).
- throwup238 2y ago
  > It's likely to be an obsolete concept in any sort of peer to peer war due to widespread anti-air weaponry, yet it's very near an assumption in NATO war doctrine, because that doctrine has been developed over decades of invading countries with no ability to defend themselves. That's too strong an assumption. The USAF 's bread and butter is supersonic stealth jets that can enter a territory, fire RF missiles to take out anti-aircraft radar, and leave faster than anything can catch it. Repeated hit and run attacks that wear down ground defenses until they can fly unchallenged. That's on top of the massive arsenal of precision guided missiles that will take out any static installation identified by constant global satellite surveillance. NATO doctrine has always been geared towards countering the Sovet Union/Russia, despite the counter-terrorism detour the US took.
  - pigpang 2y ago
    Supersonic missiles are very vulnerable to a debris in the sky. Instead of catching of a missile, a drone can be blown up in advance on predicted trajectory of the supersonic missile.
  - riku_iki 2y ago
    > The USAF 's bread and butter is supersonic stealth jets that can enter a territory, fire RF missiles to take out anti-aircraft radar F-35 can't super-sonic cruise. The choice was to be slow but stealthy.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    This is not really how it works in practice. The fastest craft ever made, by an extremely wide margin, was the amazing SR-71 Blackbird - yet another marvel from the Apollo era! [1] It hit mach 3.3 (2200 mph)! For contrast the F-35 hits mach 1.6, and Russia's SU-57 hits mach 2. Russia's workhorse anti-air system is the S-400. It has a range of 400k with a max speed of mach 14! It's also a mobile system. Even MANPADs, which are extremely cheap (relative to an aircraft) pose a major threat. For instance the now somewhat dated FIM-92 [2] can hit mach 2.2. This is why even though Ukraine's air defenses are overall somewhat limited, Russian aircraft rarely if ever go for deep missions. Air superiority is probably just impossible in modern times against a peer adversary. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
- kiba 2y ago
  The US is the greatest air power in the world bar none, and they're trained to disable and dismantle the opposition force's air defense and capabilities. It would be a mistake to think the US is weak in their SEAD game. And that's not counting the rest of NATO. I would not say that they will succeed in a peer to peer war, but NATO have the greatest chance to achieve air supremacy against any peer opponent.
dilyevsky 2y ago
That’s not what air superiority means - it’s not a relative measure of opposing air capabilities
- riku_iki 2y ago
  You can deduct that NATO countries except US won't achieve air superiority against capable opponent(Russia, China), and their doctrine is not effective if new US president elect will decide so.

eru 2y ago

Maybe weaker than Russia before the war? They have been bled dry since. But it doesn't really matter: collective defense is the whole point of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

riku_iki 2y ago
> But it doesn't really matter: collective defense is the whole point of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I am not certain US will enter war with Russia in case of some escalation with European countries, especially if Trump will be elected.

unclebucknasty 2y ago

>US has air superiority. Other NATO air forces are likely weaker than Russians. A superior air force and air superiority are different concepts. The latter refers to a conflict-time status in a particular theatre.

somenameforme 2y ago

This isn't what air superiority means. It occurs when one side is able to safely fly, and their opponent isn't. It's likely to be an obsolete concept in any sort of peer to peer war due to widespread anti-air weaponry, yet it's very near an assumption in NATO war doctrine, because that doctrine has been developed over decades of invading countries with no ability to defend themselves.

dilyevsky 2y ago
NATOs doctrinal reliance on air is precisely the reason why russia has tremendous amount of aa systems deployed
cm2187 2y ago
Doesn't it depend on how stealthy is the F35? That will soon be almost the only game in town in Europe (outside of France).
throwup238 2y ago
> It's likely to be an obsolete concept in any sort of peer to peer war due to widespread anti-air weaponry, yet it's very near an assumption in NATO war doctrine, because that doctrine has been developed over decades of invading countries with no ability to defend themselves. That's too strong an assumption. The USAF 's bread and butter is supersonic stealth jets that can enter a territory, fire RF missiles to take out anti-aircraft radar, and leave faster than anything can catch it. Repeated hit and run attacks that wear down ground defenses until they can fly unchallenged. That's on top of the massive arsenal of precision guided missiles that will take out any static installation identified by constant global satellite surveillance. NATO doctrine has always been geared towards countering the Sovet Union/Russia, despite the counter-terrorism detour the US took.
- pigpang 2y ago
  Supersonic missiles are very vulnerable to a debris in the sky. Instead of catching of a missile, a drone can be blown up in advance on predicted trajectory of the supersonic missile.
- riku_iki 2y ago
  > The USAF 's bread and butter is supersonic stealth jets that can enter a territory, fire RF missiles to take out anti-aircraft radar F-35 can't super-sonic cruise. The choice was to be slow but stealthy.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  This is not really how it works in practice. The fastest craft ever made, by an extremely wide margin, was the amazing SR-71 Blackbird - yet another marvel from the Apollo era! [1] It hit mach 3.3 (2200 mph)! For contrast the F-35 hits mach 1.6, and Russia's SU-57 hits mach 2. Russia's workhorse anti-air system is the S-400. It has a range of 400k with a max speed of mach 14! It's also a mobile system. Even MANPADs, which are extremely cheap (relative to an aircraft) pose a major threat. For instance the now somewhat dated FIM-92 [2] can hit mach 2.2. This is why even though Ukraine's air defenses are overall somewhat limited, Russian aircraft rarely if ever go for deep missions. Air superiority is probably just impossible in modern times against a peer adversary. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
kiba 2y ago
The US is the greatest air power in the world bar none, and they're trained to disable and dismantle the opposition force's air defense and capabilities. It would be a mistake to think the US is weak in their SEAD game. And that's not counting the rest of NATO. I would not say that they will succeed in a peer to peer war, but NATO have the greatest chance to achieve air supremacy against any peer opponent.

dilyevsky 2y ago

That’s not what air superiority means - it’s not a relative measure of opposing air capabilities

riku_iki 2y ago
You can deduct that NATO countries except US won't achieve air superiority against capable opponent(Russia, China), and their doctrine is not effective if new US president elect will decide so.